Re : [elfling-d] Helge's seemliness
- In particular, the truth is that it is not "Neo-Elvish" , _per se_,
that I take issue with; rather, it is with the intellectual and
rhetorical dishonesty of Helge Fauskanger and David Salo,
Having studied in some details the "courses" of HKF, Thorsten Renk or Aaron Shaw for the two last months, it seems to me that this problem of "denial" of the reconstructed/standardized/normalized aspects of this inventions (which must be clearely dissociated from Tolkien's own invented languages) is comparable, at least in some way, to the notion of "Substantial equivalence" (employed to assimilate GMO to "classical" organisms, just because the former are not (supposedly) _substantially_ different from the former...).
It seems to be the same "intellectual dishonesty", for nearly the same goal : a lobby's profit...
So, I think it wouldnt an abuse nor an insult to call them "Faukangerian", "Salarin", "Renkarin", "Renkaic" and so on. Since, for example, the "Renkuenya" is just a more simply (and not up-to-date) form of "Fauskuenya", and so different from it, even if "substantially equivalent".
Envoyez avec Yahoo! Mail. Une boite mail plus intelligente http://mail.yahoo.fr
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- On the matter of asterisks and disclaimers, I do have to note:
1) Both Helge and Thorsten do indeed make disclaimers in their
respective courses. And as I have noted elsewhere, Helge has in fact
made some effort to make his course more rigorous in the use of
asterisks and disclaimers over time, particularly in his course, but
also somewhat elsewhere on _Ardalambion_. Thorsten has done so from
the beginning, I believe. They can't really be held responsible if
people do not read and heed those disclaimers. (Note though that I am
speaking strictly of their _courses_; the rest of _Ardalambion_, for
instance, is another matter.)
2) The strict use of asterisks becomes more necessary the more an
author intends to produce a scholarly work (as opposed to a primer),
and of course it is vital when the author _claims_ that unattested
forms are marked as such (because otherwise you give the false
appearance that a form _is_ attested). This (_inter alia_) is where
Salo's book runs hard afoul of scholarly integrity.
3) As a matter of style, I agree that it would be laborious for
students to have inline citations throughout a primer. That being
said, though, surely it would be a good and useful thing, for audience
and author alike, to have as an appendix to the primer a glossary of
all forms encountered in the course, where citations can be made? This
would both serve as a ready reference for the student, and provide a
double-check of forms for the author.